Miller v. Dugan et al
ORDER denying 13 Motion to Compel. Further directing Plaintiff to file any Response to Defendant's Motion on or before 5/31/12. Signed by Honorable P. K. Holmes, III on May 24, 2012. (lw)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
FORT SMITH DIVISION
JOHN EDWARD MILLER
Case No. 2:11-CV-02129
KEVIN R. DUGAN; JERROD WAYNE SCOTT;
and CITY OF BARLING
Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Attendance at Depositions (Doc.
13) and Defendants’ Response (Doc. 14). Plaintiff seeks an order compelling the Defendants to
present for depositions on May 29, 2012.
It appearing to the Court that the parties did not finally and mutually agree to hold
Defendants’ depositions on May 29, or any other specific date, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s Motion
(Doc. 13) should be and hereby is DENIED. The Court declines to compel either party to attend a
deposition on any specific date at this time.
Also pending before the Court is Defendants’ recently-filed Motion to Compel. (Doc. 15).
Given the proximity of the discovery deadline,1 and in the interest of resolving the issues presented
in a timely manner, Plaintiff is DIRECTED to file any Response to Defendants’ Motion on or before
May 31, 2012.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 24th day of May, 2012.
A Final Scheduling Order (Doc. 9) has been entered in this case, setting a discovery
deadline of July 7, 2012. The parties are reminded that, pursuant to that Order, the Court generally
will not a grant a continuance because a party does not have time in which to depose a witness.
/s/P. K. Holmes, III
P.K. HOLMES, III
CHIEF U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?